MUKUL RANI THAKUR,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio. It found that the AO committed a substantive error by not invoking Section 153C for the assessment year in question, which was covered by the proviso to Section 153C based on the date of receipt of incriminating documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return for AY 2021-22 was subjected to scrutiny assessment. The AO referred to a search conducted on a third party and digital evidence found, alleging it pertained to the assessee's property sale. The assessee denied any connection to this material.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was valid when the AO should have invoked Section 153C based on material found during a search on a third party. Whether proper procedure and approvals were followed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT1,372 citing187 ITR 688 · 1991 · SC
- CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.689 citing380 ITR 612 · 2016 · HC · Read judgment
- SSP Aviation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax308 citing346 ITR 177 · 2012 · HC
- Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia v. ITO140 citing453 ITR 417 · 2023 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia54 citing241 Taxmann 221 · 2016 · HC
- Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia29 citing26 Taxmann.com 54 · 2012 · HC
- Bentrly Nevadia LLC v. ITO, WP(C) 774/2019 (Del)27 citing252 Taxmann 407 · 2018 · HC
- Dr. K.M. Mehaboob v. DCIT12 citing130 Taxmann.com 130 · 2021 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI VIMAL KUMARSHRI VIMAL KUMAR
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The instant appeal has been filed at the instance of The instant appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated to assail the First Appellate order dated 08.02.2024 passed by Ld. passed by Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (A)
Commissioner of Income Tax (
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Maleckunnel Philip Varghese, Sambalpur vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Cuttack24 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on Dr. K.M. Mehaboob v. DCIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that since seized material from a third party was used in the assessee's assessment, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, requiring a notice. As this procedure was not followed, th...
- Reena Mittal, New Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle-31, New DelhiDelhi4 Feb 2025Allowed
Also relies on Dr. K.M. Mehaboob v. DCIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 143(3) was not valid as it should have been made under Section 153C, given that it was based on materials from a third-party search. Consequently, the assessment was qu...
- Arti Dhall, New Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle-31, New DelhiDelhi28 Jan 2025Allowed
Also relies on Dr. K.M. Mehaboob v. DCIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was based on material found during a search on a third party, it should have been completed under Section 153C, not Section 143(3). The assessment framed under Section 143(3) w...
- Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs ACIT, CC-26, New DelhiDelhi21 Feb 2022Allowed
Also relies on Dr. K.M. Mehaboob v. DCIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that additions related to share capital and kickbacks were not sustainable in the hands of the assessee as an individual. It also found that certain additions were made without proper application of min...
- Sri. H. Nagaraja, Bangalore vs CIT, BangaloreBangalore17 Mar 2017Allowed
Also relies on Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 as the AO had conducted due inquiry on all items during the assessment proceedings. The CIT failed to provide material t...
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
